Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: A general practice in inner city Melbourne (Victoria), committed to ensuring quality standards of clinical care, developed a process for peer review of their doctors' performance. The aim was to ensure that there was a robust and fair process for evaluation of doctor performance from both a safety point of view, and from the perspective of contribution to team based practice.
Objective: This article describes the process and outcomes of this appraisal process.
Discussion: From the springboard of weekly clinical meetings which address critical incidents and near misses, the practice doctors developed an annual process of formal performance review incorporating hard and soft indicators of clinical performance and compliance with professional and practice standards. This type of activity falls within the scope of quality improvement in general practice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!